It is very popular for vehicles (including but not limited to, cars, trucks, boats, planes, RV's, ATV's, personal watercraft, lawnmowers, furniture, kayaks, golf carts etc.) to have one size cup holders primarily built into consoles. While, the one size built-in cup holders are large enough to handle large cups such as 32 ounces, 48 ounces, 64 ounce cups and the like, the one-size cup holders end up loosely holding smaller beverage containers such as small cups, 12 ounces and 16 ounce cans and bottles. As a result, these smaller beverage containers can often spill and fall out when a vehicle is traveling over bumps, making turns and/or making sudden stops. These built-in beverage holders require large voids be incorporated into structural features of the vehicles to accommodate the beverage profile and keep it held in place via mechanical means. These large voids often require an enormous amount of wasted space both above and below the beverage holding structure. This “dead” space would be better served for use for other critical components (i.e., electronic controllers, storage space, etc.).
Attempts have been made over the years to use beverage holders such as insulation sleeves for bottles and cans, straps for bottles and cans and mugs, where the beverage holders incorporate traditional fixed magnets, that allow the beverage holder to be attachable to a fixed support that can have another mateable magnet, and the like. See for example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,065,632 to Moore, Jr.; U.S. Pat. No. 6,193,202 to Rogers; U.S. Pat. No. 8,251,247 to Breckner; U.S. Pat. No. 9,157,573 to Zach et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 9,578,954 to Sellars.
However, the mere use of traditional magnets is flawed for all but the simplest of uses (i.e. refrigerator magnets, laptop chargers, purse closures and the like.). If the magnets are strong they accelerate the object attaching to the other object creating a jolt and are difficult to detach. If the magnets are weak their retention ability is limited. Proximity between a magnet and a magnetic surface causes problems. The distance separating magnets and their attachment greatly increases and/or decreases a magnets ability to attract. While touching magnets are very strong—with any distance between them they become exponentially weaker.
Attempts have been made to use additional fasteners, such as coded type magnets (i.e., “programmable magnets”) to attach objects inside vehicles. See for example, U.S. Published Patent Application 2011/0018665 to Fullerton et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 8,941,455 to Alexander et al. which are incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Fullerton et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2011/0018665) provides a coded magnet attachment utilizing magnetic field emission structures includes a surface, for example a horizontal surface on a table, ledge, or the like. Fullerton teaches of an “alignment force” which matches polarities and “draws” the vessel to the structure. The Fullerton embodiment, with its “all-or-none” attraction resulting in a jarring effect when the two bodies align and are magnetically attracted to each other. This feature can result in spilled beverages as the vessel and structure come into violent contact with each other. This is an undesirable feature when hot beverages are housed in the beverage vessel, which can lead to personal injury to the user. Additionally, the Fullerton et al. design is hampered when the user places the vessel in near-field alignment with the like polarities, causing a rapid rotation of the vessel (as the attracted polarities come into approximation of each other), twisting from the user's hand and most likely resulting in dangerous spillage.
The present invention, in contrast, does not rely on an alignment feature, and subsequently does not demonstrate this tendency to rotate independent if the user, nor have a “jarring” effect as it does not “lock” as taught by Fullerton et al. art.
The present invention provides a very-low engagement magnetic attraction force quotient, which minimizes the attractive forces when the two system components are placed within their respective magnetic attractive range. This feature precludes unwanted acceleration of the components, and eliminates the “jarring” effect found in the Fullerton et al. prior art.
Furthermore, this present invention teaches a “progressive, rheostat-like, incrementally increasing and/or decreasing the magnetic attraction force along a defined but not limited to circumferential, rotational path” which neither jars, nor unexpectedly rotates the vessel. Additionally, the present invention rotates smoothly along an up to 360-degree, generally concentric axis, which keeps the vessel centered.
As anyone versed in the art will realize, these features are not contemplated by the Fullerton et al. application nor in prior art. Summarily, Fullerton et al. does not contemplate the use of retrofit kits as a means of securing any loose, vessel-like objects to any and all geometrically configured surface.
Alexander et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,941,455) teaches of an interior vehicle attachment system adapted to selectively secure an object relative to a surface, such that the object achieves a retained condition, the system comprising an interior vehicular component accessible to an occupant, defining the surface, and including a fixed coded magnet having a fixed plurality of maxels having individual polarities and strengths, and cooperatively emitting a magnetic field profile from the surface; and
“a guide configured and positioned to physically engage the object, so as to reduce or eliminate motion by the object in at least one direction.”
The Alexander et al. patent does not contemplate the present inventions, “guideless system” of magnets, with its progressive, rheostat-like, incrementally increasing and/or decreasing the magnetic attraction force along a defined circumferential, rotational path. Additionally, Alexander et al. does not teach of the use of retrofit kits as a means of securing any loose, vessel-like objects to any geometrically configured surface.
Thus, the need exists for solutions to the above problems with the prior art.